CA Trust, Estate & Probate Litigation

CA Trust, Estate & Probate Litigation

How to Select a Trustee for Your California Revocable Trust

Posted in Videos

Selecting the proper Trustee for your California Trust is critical is you want your estate to stay out of the Court system.  Over half of the Trust litigation we work on everyday invokes a bad Trustee doing bad things.  In this video partner Keith A. Davidson discusses some considerations you should keep in mind in selecting your Trustee:

For our email subscribers, please click on the title link to watch this video on our website.

Oops–The Unintended Will Revocation

Posted in Videos

Did you know that there are situations where you could revoke your Will without meaning to do so?  In this video I discuss the unintened Will revocation:

 

 

For our email subscribers: please click the title to view this video on our website.

A Better Standard for Undue Influence in California Trust and Will Cases: Part 4–Unfair Distribution from Will or Trust

Posted in Undue Influence

This is part four of a four part post discussing the newly created standard for proving undue influence directly in California Trust and Will contests.

Fairness.jpg

Effective January 1, 2014, the California Legislature has introduced a new standard for proving undue influence directly (found at Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.70; and made applicable to the Probate Code by Probate Code Section 86), and it consists of the following four factors:

  1. The vulnerability of the victim,
  2. The influencer’s apparent authority,
  3. The actions or tactics used by the influencer, and
  4. The equity of the result.

We covered vulnerability and apparent authority in my last posts.  Now let’s discuss the third factor—actions or tactics used by the influencer.

The Equity of the Result.  Equity simply means fairness.  In the undue influence context, equity means was the last Will or Trust a fair result?  The answer to that question can change depending on whom you ask.  The undue influencer will have a million reasons why the Will or Trust is fair; whereas the disinherited family members will disagree. 

But the law does not really care about unfair result per se.  In fact, Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.70(b) specifically states “evidence of an inequitable result, without more, is not sufficient to prove undue influence.”  Wills and Trusts can be unfair—so says the law. 

As a factor of undue influence, however, an unfair result can establish proof of abusive behavior.  Specifically, evidence of equity for undue influence includes “economic consequences to the victim, any divergence from the victim’s prior intent or course of conduct or dealing, the relationship of the value conveyed to the value of any services or consideration received, or the appropriateness of the change in light of the length and nature of the relationship.”  See Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.70(a)(4).

In other words, a short relationship with a part-time caregiver who ends up with the entire estate may be inequitable from an undue influence perspective.  But leaving an entire estate to the testator’s spouse of twenty years may not be inequitable, even if it disinherits children from a prior marriage.  It all depends on the facts and circumstances.

Some of the evidence we typically look for includes a divergence from long-standing prior estate plans, benefitting people who have not been around long or who did not do much for the victim, or below-market transaction with the victim prior to death.  Each of these situations evidences a highly inequitable result, and can be persuasive in proving undue influence in Court.

Legal Burden of Proof in California Trust and Will Contests

Posted in Videos

You may know that you have to prove your case in Court, but to what extent must it be proven?  In this video, Stewart Albertson discusses the legal burden of proof used in California Trust and Will contest cases.

 

 

For our email subscribers: please click the title to view this video on our website.

 

Proving Undue Influence in California Will and Trust Contests

Posted in Videos

Overturning a Will or Trust based on undue influence is not always easy.  But if you know the type of evidence you need to support your case, then you have a much better chance of proving it in Court.  In this video, Stewart Albertson discusses the way in which to prove undue influence in California Trust and Will contest cases.

 

 

For our email subscribers: click on the title to view this video on our website.

A Better Standard for Undue Influence in California Trust and Will Cases: Part 3–Actions of the Influencer

Posted in Undue Influence

This is part three of a four part post discussing the newly created standard for proving undue influence directly in California Trust and Will contests.

Stealing.jpg

Effective January 1, 2014, the California Legislature has introduced a new standard for proving undue influence directly (found at Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.70; and made applicable to the Probate Code by Probate Code Section 86), and it consists of the following four factors:

  1. The vulnerability of the victim,
  2. The influencer’s apparent authority,
  3. The actions or tactics used by the influencer, and
  4. The equity of the result.

We covered vulnerability and apparent authority in my last posts.  Now let’s discuss the third factor—actions or tactics used by the influencer.

Actions or Tactics used by the Influencer.  How do undue influencers act?  Do they exert their abnormally strong influence out in the open for all to see?  Not usually.  In fact, the actions or tactics used by an undue influencer are so universally common that it represents one of the four factors for proving undue influence in California. 

Under 15610.70(a)(3), evidence of actions or tactics of the influencer include:

  1. Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interactions with others, access to information, or sleep;
  2. Use of affection, intimidation, or coercion; and
  3. Initiation of changes in personal or property rights, use of haste or secrecy in effecting those changes, effecting changes at inappropriate times and places, and claims of expertise in effecting changes.

Sounds a bit like a day-time soap opera.  Unfortunately, this happens all too often in real life.  The common effect of each of these items is to control the victim, conceal the wrongdoing, and coerce the victim into signing documents favorable to the influencer (the three “c’s”: control, conceal, and coerce).  You do not need to prove all three of the items listed above, they simply provide an example of actions/tactics that come into play to prove undue influence has occurred.

The actions that are most troubling are (1) controlling necessaries of life and medication, and (2) using haste, secrecy, and initiating changes at inappropriate times.  Not only are these actions evidence of coercion, they can be downright dangerous to the victim—especially the medication issue.  For that reason, family members should be careful whenever these signs arise.  Oftentimes, people will tell me after the fact that they thought something may be wrong, but didn’t know what to do about it.  Simply put, take action if you think necessaries of life and medication are being manipulated. 

As for proving undue influence, the more actions and tactics you can prove, the more likely you will be in overturning a California Will or Trust based on undue influence.

A Better Standard for Undue Influence in California Trust and Will Cases: Part 2–Apparent Authority

Posted in Undue Influence

This is part two of a four part post discussing the newly created standard for proving undue influence directly in California Trust and Will contests.

Puppet.jpg

Effective January 1, 2014, the California Legislature has introduced a new standard for proving undue influence directly (found at Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.70; and made applicable to the Probate Code by Probate Code Section 86), and it consists of the following four factors:

  1. The vulnerability of the victim,
  2. The influencer’s apparent authority,
  3. The actions or tactics used by the influencer, and
  4. The equity of the result.

We covered vulnerability in my last post.  Now let’s discuss the second factor—apparent authority.

Influencer’s Apparent Authority.  Under 15610.70(a)(2), “apparent authority” includes things like a fiduciary (i.e., trustee or agent), family member, care provider, health care professional, legal professional (uh oh), spiritual adviser, expert (not sure what type of expert, but an expert is stated), or “other qualification.”  Well that is a long list of people who could have apparent authority. 

This is not the first use of “apparent authority” in California law.  In fact, Civil Code section 1575 (dealing mainly with contracts) has defined undue influence for years as “the use, by one in whom a confidence is reposed by another, or who holds a real or apparent authority over him, of such confidence or authority for the purpose of obtain an unfair advantage over him….”  (See Civil Code section 1575(1)). 

But what is the statute really getting at here?  Keep in mind that the entire concept of undue influence is where the independent free will of the testator is diverted by extraordinary and abnormal pressure.  (See Estate of Sarabia (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 599).  Apparent authority, then, is a factor to determine whether or not the pressure was abnormal enough to divert a testator’s free will.  In other words, a trustee, an agent, a family member, a lawyer, a pastor—all have the ability (given their close relationship to the testator) to exert an abnormal amount of pressure.  And that is what this factor is looking at, what is the relationship between the testator and the wrongdoer?  And is it the type of relationship where an abnormal amount of pressure would not be hard to exert?

For example, if your lawyer tells you that you must do something (like leave your entire estate to your lawyer) you are going to do just that because everyone always listens to his or her lawyer…right?  Well, maybe not.  But if the other factors listed above are present (such as vulnerability of the victim, actions of the influencer, and equity of the result), then having a lawyer tell the testator they must leave their assets in a certain way could influence that person to follow the lawyers instruction over the independent free will of the testator.  The same applies to a family member, care giver, or pastor.  The apparent authority, or confidence, someone has over the victim, can cause an increase in the potential for abuse. 

Apparent authority is just one factor.  Being a fiduciary, agent, or lawyer, by itself, is not enough to establish undue influence.  But as a factor, it holds an important point in proving undue influence in court.  So if you are trying to overturn a California Trust and Will, start looking for apparent authority evidence.

What Do You Need to Prove Lack of Capacity in a California Court?

Posted in Videos

What type of evidence do you need to bring to Court to prove a lack of capacity for California Trust and Will cases?  In this video I describe the type of evidence required.

 

 

For our email subscribers, please clilck the title to view this video on our website.

A Better Standard for Undue Influence in California Trust and Will Cases: Part 1–Vulnerability

Posted in Undue Influence

How do you know when influence becomes undue?  People influence one another every day, it’s part of being social.  But when influence crosses the line it becomes undue and that can cause a California Will or Trust to be invalidated.

Fragile Eggs

The problem is articulating the undue influence standard.  In California, we have two ways of proving undue influence—directly and by shifting the burden of proof to the opposing party.  The burden shift approach has a nice, concise rule; you have to show (1) a confidential relationship, (2) procurement of the contested Will or Trust, and (3) undue benefit.  Proving undue influence without the burden shift, however, has been a bit more confusing.  That is, until now.

Effective January 1, 2014, the California Legislature has introduced a new standard for proving undue influence directly (found at Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.70; and made applicable to the Probate Code by Probate Code Section 86), and it consists of the following four factors:

  1. The vulnerability of the victim,
  2. The influencer’s apparent authority,
  3. The actions or tactics used by the influencer, and
  4. The equity of the result.

The statute specially states that an inequitable result, by itself, is not enough to establish undue influence (Welfare and Institutions Code section 15610.70(b)).  The statute also claims that it is not meant to replace existing law and authority on undue influence (Probate Code section 86).  But (and this is a big but) this new standard will go a long way in streamlining the use of undue influence in California Trust and Will cases even where the burden shift elements are not present.  In other words, the muddy mess of undue influence law just became much clearer. 

What do these four factors really mean in the real world?  Let’s figure that out.  In this post I will address the first factor, vulnerability of the victim.  I will cover the other three in subsequent posts.

Vulnerability of the victim.  Under 15610.70(a)(1), vulnerability includes “mental incapacity, illness, disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation, or dependency, and whether the influencer knew or should have known of the alleged victim’s vulnerability.” 

In practice, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are the most common mental conditions that create vulnerability.  And a well-trained medical expert can examine a decedent’s medical records and determine the level to which that person was susceptible to undue influence because the greater the mental impairment, the greater the vulnerability.

But the statute does not limit vulnerability to mental defects alone, which is an important point.  In other words, people can be susceptible to undue influence for any number of reasons even if they are not suffering from dementia.  The statute references illness, injury, education, emotional distress, and isolation as separate grounds on which a vulnerability claim can be based. 

In contrast, to prove a lack of capacity, the law mandates that you prove a mental defect is present (see Probate Code section 811).  Yet, the first factor of undue influence sidesteps this requirement—meaning that undue influence may be a more versatile claim to make than lack of capacity.  Undue influence may apply where there is no capacity problem at all.  But there still must be a vulnerability.  That means there must be some evidence present that demonstrates how and why the decedent was vulnerable to undue influence.

Since this statute is so new, we don’t have any appellate authority to further explain this factor.  But over time this factor holds a lot of promise for expanding the reach of undue influence claims in California.

Attacking Liars: How a Fraud claim is used to overturn California Wills and Trusts

Posted in Videos

Fraud!  Sounds scary and it can be used to overturn a California Trust and Will, provided that you have the right set of facts.  In this video, Albertson & Davidson describe using the concept of fraud to overturn a California Trust or Will.

 

 

For our email subscribers, please click on the title to view this video on our website.

.